MATERIAL AND METHODS: A questionnaire based on the study aims and previous literature was developed by the authors and mailed to all currently registered GPs in private clinics in Penang. Survey responses were analysed using SSPS version 21.

RESULTS: From a total of 386 questionnaires distributed, 112 (29%) were returned. Half of the respondents were unaware of the existence of any CPG for depression. One quarter reported not managing depression at all, while one third used anxiolytic monotherapy in moderate-severe depression. Almost 75 % of respondents reported making referrals to specialist psychiatric services for moderate-severe depression. Time constraints, patient non-adherence and a lack of depression management skills were perceived as the main barriers to depression care.

METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a single-blind RCT (October 2017 -May 2019) with Chin (39.3%), Kachin (15.7%), and Rohingya (45%) refugees living in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The trial included 170 participants receiving six 45-minute weekly sessions of IAT (97.6% retention, 4 lost to follow-up) and 161 receiving a multicomponent CBT also involving six 45-minute weekly sessions (96.8% retention, 5 lost to follow-up). Participants (mean age: 30.8 years, SD = 9.6) had experienced and/or witnessed an average 10.1 types (SD = 5.9, range = 1-27) of traumatic events. We applied a single-blind design in which independent assessors of pre- and posttreatment indices were masked in relation to participants' treatment allocation status. Primary outcomes were symptom scores of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Complex PTSD (CPTSD), Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), the 5 scales of the Adaptive Stress Index (ASI), and a measure of resilience (the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale [CDRS]). Compared to CBT, an intention-to-treat analysis (n = 331) at 6-week posttreatment follow-up demonstrated greater reductions in the IAT arm for all common mental disorder (CMD) symptoms and ASI domains except for ASI-3 (injustice), as well as increases in the resilience scores. Adjusted average treatment effects assessing the differences in posttreatment scores between IAT and CBT (with baseline scores as covariates) were -0.08 (95% CI: -0.14 to -0.02, p = 0.012) for PTSD, -0.07 (95% CI: -0.14 to -0.01) for CPTSD, -0.07 for MDD (95% CI: -0.13 to -0.01, p = 0.025), 0.16 for CDRS (95% CI: 0.06-0.026, p ≤ 0.001), -0.12 (95% CI: -0.20 to -0.03, p ≤ 0.001) for ASI-1 (safety/security), -0.10 for ASI-2 (traumatic losses; 95% CI: -0.18 to -0.02, p = 0.02), -0.03 for ASI-3 (injustice; (95% CI: -0.11 to 0.06, p = 0.513), -0.12 for ASI-4 (role/identity disruptions; 95% CI: -0.21 to -0.04, p ≤ 0.001), and -0.18 for ASI-5 (existential meaning; 95% CI: -0.19 to -0.05, p ≤ 0.001). Compared to CBT, the IAT group had larger effect sizes for all indices (except for resilience) including PTSD (IAT, d = 0.93 versus CBT, d = 0.87), CPTSD (d = 1.27 versus d = 1.02), MDD (d = 1.4 versus d = 1.11), ASI-1 (d = 1.1 versus d = 0.85), ASI-2 (d = 0.81 versus d = 0.66), ASI-3 (d = 0.49 versus d = 0.42), ASI-4 (d = 0.86 versus d = 0.67), and ASI-5 (d = 0.72 versus d = 0.53). No adverse events were recorded for either therapy. Limitations include a possible allegiance effect (the authors inadvertently conveying disproportionate enthusiasm for IAT in training and supervision), cross-over effects (counsellors applying elements of one therapy in delivering the other), and the brief period of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS: Compared to CBT, IAT showed superiority in improving mental health symptoms and adaptative stress from baseline to 6-week posttreatment. The differences in scores between IAT and CBT were modest and future studies conducted by independent research teams need to confirm the findings.